Ad description
A TV ad for BUPA health insurance told the story of a skin cancer sufferer. She said, "I'm Sue, I'd had skin cancer, but it came back. Fortunately, BUPA were still there. Eight operations and they covered everything. I remember my son Luke wouldn't let me see myself in case it upset me." On-screen text stated "Terms and conditions apply". Sue continued, "Three days later, they rebuilt my face and now smiling has never felt so good." The voice-over at the close of the ad stated, "With no financial limits BUPA cancer cover is always there for you. Call today."
Issue
Two viewers, who understood that financial limits applied if patients did not use a Bupa fee assured consultant, challenged whether the claim "no financial limits" was misleading.
Response
Bupa Insurance Ltd (Bupa) did not believe the claim "no financial limits" was misleading, and considered it to be a true and accurate representation of their cancer cover. They did not believe the average consumer would interpret the claim in the way the complainants had, and also believed it had been adequately qualified by the on-screen text "Terms and conditions apply". They said the claim related to the fact that there was no upper limit or cap on the total amount that Bupa would pay for eligible cancer treatment, and no time limit on treatment. They would pay the full cost of eligible treatment irrespective of the number of procedures that may be required. This meant that if a member required lengthy treatment over an extended period of time this would be covered, whether treatment took six weeks or six years. However, this did not mean that members could choose options for treatment which fell outside the applicable terms and conditions. Members could choose to use a fee assured consultant (which they said was clearly explained in their terms and conditions), in which case they would not have to pay anything for their treatment, or they could choose to pay a top-up to be treated by a non fee assured consultant. They said some other providers of medical insurance had a cap of how much they would pay for cancer treatment in the lifetime of the policy. They felt it was necessary to qualify the claim "no financial limits" and so included the statement "Terms and conditions apply" to alert consumers to the fact that Bupa operated a system of fee assured consultants. They said this was very different to imposing a financial limit on cancer cover in the way that some other insurers did. They said that their terms and conditions were available on their website. They also said that over 90% of Bupa members who had claimed on their policy had their treatment costs met in full because they chose to see a fee assured consultant, of which there were over 10,000 in the Bupa network. All their fee assured consultants were highly qualified experts in their field and they did not believe the condition was so significant that it should have been stated in the ad, apart from the qualification that referred to terms and conditions. They believed the qualification referring to terms and conditions was clear and that the average consumer would be prompted to visit their website to view these, and would understand that they related to the claim "no financial limits".
Clearcast did not believe the claim was misleading. They said the ad was for Bupa insurance and stated that there were no financial limits to Bupa cancer cover, which was factually correct when treated by Bupa appointed medical staff. If members wished to be treated by non Bupa consultants then that was their choice but it would mean they would have to pay a top-up. They said it was comparable to ads for motor insurance where members would be required to use authorised dealers to carry out repairs.
Assessment
Not upheld
The complainants believed the claim "no financial limits" was misleading because if patients did not use a Bupa fee assured consultant they would need to pay a top up to cover their fees in full. They believed this amounted to a financial limit. The ASA understood that patients who did not wish to use a fee assured consultant would have to pay a top-up fee. However, the ad focused on a cancer sufferer whose cancer had come back after initial treatment. In this context we considered that viewers would understand the claim "no financial limits" to mean that they would be covered for the costs of all their cancer treatment in full, no matter how long the treatment took. The ad did not make any claims in relation to patient choice of consultants. We considered the average consumer would have an understanding that health insurance products would include terms and conditions, and noted this was highlighted in the on-screen text, and that that these were available to consumers prior to purchase. There were over 10,000 Bupa fee assured consultants nationwide and over 90% of Bupa patients chose to use a fee assured consultant and so had their treatment costs covered in full, with the rest paying a top-up fee. Although we understood it might be the case that some patients may wish to use a specific consultant and that in that case they would have to pay a top-up fee if they were not fee assured, we did not consider this condition was so significant that it needed to be stated in the ad. We concluded the claim "no financial limits" was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
